Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, given that the Foreign Secretary indeed called the reports utter nonsense on 13 December but that since the beginning of the new year there have been persistent reports in British newspapers, apparently corroborated by British officials, that British intelligence agents were present at the interrogations in Greece, is the Intelligence and Security Committee inclined to look at these matters, so that we can carry out our own investigations? The Greek authorities have now embarked on full and formal investigations. I understand that the chairman of the committee in the other place, Paul Murphy, has indicated that he will look into the allegations.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, of course I am going to accept advice from the party opposite on how to conduct industrial relations, given the contrast between our figure of only 215,000 days lost in the past year and the number of days lost under previous administrations, which were never less than double that. Our present industrial relations record in days lost is the best since records began. So I do not think that we need lectures on the point. Even if we did and I accepted that the noble Lord was trying to help in the long run, does the House think that it would be valuable to receive such contributions when negotiations are being conducted this very day?

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we have been promised the outcome of the energy review during 2006 but that that could be one month away or 10 months away? Will he help the House by giving us with greater precision some idea of when we might expect it?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hate to say it but the Question is about the short-term. The noble Lord's point involves the long-term and fits into the review to which I have alluded. We will look at what coal can contribute to the long-term energy needs of this country, although the noble Lord will recognise that the recovery of pits that have been lost is in almost every case an uneconomic proposition. The Question is about the short-term, which I have defined as this winter and next. That strategy is rather longer-term than that addressed by the Question.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I wish to draw to the attention of the House the fact that this morning I notified the Leader of the House that I wanted to ask the following Private Notice Question:
	"To ask Her Majesty's Government if, in view of recent statements to the media by government Ministers, they will indicate to the House what are their future plans with regard to police on the House of Lords".
	Imagine my surprise when I discovered that this Question had been turned down on the basis that it was not an urgent matter. Will the Leader of the House say what, on Saturday afternoon, made the Government brief the BBC and newspapers on the future of the House of Lords? Will she also say what made the Lord Chancellor break his engagements on Sunday and urgently go to the BBC studios to give an interview on the future of your Lordships' House when it is not sufficiently urgent to give a statement in this very House this afternoon? I am asking the Leader of the House not to reverse her decision now, although that would be a perfectly fair thing for her to do, but to consider very carefully whether she took the right decision and whether she believes that this House should be told before the media what the Government have in mind on the future of this House—an issue that is extremely important to every Member of your Lordships' House.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we are disappointed that the Government have not found time to discuss the Private Notice Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. There is a clear need to find out what the Government have in mind, rather than having to rely on speculation in the newspapers. It would be helpful to know what consultation process the Government intend in order to discuss the reform of your Lordships' House. Are they minded that discussions will be within or outside the framework of the Joint Committee? The sooner that we can get on with this task, the better it will be for the House of Lords.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is normal if the Member in question does not like the answer that he or she was given. This House may recall that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and his committee looked at the speakership of this House, I was clear that this area should be transferred to an independently elected Speaker of this House. In my view, I have handled every Private Notice Question put to me, bearing in mind the needs of the House rather than the needs of the Government. I can see that this issue is of interest to the House, but I cannot see why this issue urgently requires an answer this afternoon. This House has just taken three years to make a decision on whether it wants an independent Speaker. I hate to say it, but it has taken many more years than that to move to the first stage of House of Lords reform. What is of sufficient urgency today? I fail to see it.

Lord Campbell-Savours: That is, not to question the Speaker or the person who acts as Speaker on the issue of an application for a PNQ? These matters are always dealt with privately.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: With Amendment No. 280 we turn once again to the important issue of biodiversity. I want to suggest to the Committee that while matters of the House are obviously interesting, those concerning biodiversity are extremely urgent to many outside this place.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am grateful to the Minister for seeking a little quiet so that I can move my amendment.
	Clause 41 refers to the Secretary of State drawing up lists of organisms and types of habitat, which is a good idea. However, the clause refers to,
	"organisms and types of habitat . . . of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity".
	I would argue that when we consider biodiversity or ecosystems, it is hard to see that any one part is unnecessary and therefore not of principal importance. For example, the small organism at the bottom of the food chain, which may not in the opinion of the Secretary of State be of principal importance, still plays its part. Meanwhile the animal at the top of the food chain, sometimes ourselves or perhaps the big raptors or cats and similar types of creature, depends on the chain holding all the way through. So where this clause refers to "principal importance", I believe it is simply wrong. It is wrong because everything must be considered to be of equal importance in creating both the food chain and contributing to the ecosystem.
	I take by way of example what it takes to create a fertile soil in woodland. The soil is created by the action of small insects such as ants breaking down leaf matter. Does the Secretary of State consider ants in woodland to be of principal importance? So the word "principal" as it is used in this clause demonstrates that the Government are not thinking correctly about the lists they intend to draw up. On habitats, surely we have lists of principal importance in the SSSIs and in all the European designations of habitats that are already in place. I wonder whether the energy and expense put into drawing up further lists is energy and expense well used.
	In conclusion, I return to a matter that we have discussed previously in Committee. The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology is to suffer a drastic across-the-board cut for exactly this type of work—maintaining lists and building databases. As I understand it, that is exactly the sort of record keeping that the Government are now proposing to introduce in Clause 41, except that, in the past, the work recognised the wholeness of the ecosystem and the wholeness of biodiversity. Work was done to build very broad databases and in-depth studies were carried out on particular species. This clause, as drafted, takes away that ability and makes us concentrate solely on points that the Secretary of State regards as of "principal importance". I believe that that is entirely the wrong way of thinking. I shall be interested to hear the Minister explain why there is such wording in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I have much sympathy with this amendment. The clause as drafted is a typical example of the Government over-gilding their legislation. As a young, novice farmer I well remember the introduction of hormone weedkillers. They were introduced to kill extremely common, pernicious weeds which grew then in all cereal crops. Those weeds were also hosts to many insects which were the main food for a variety of wild animals. The English partridge, in particular, comes to mind. Effectively, within five years of the introduction of hormone weedkillers, it disappeared in this country.
	We cannot foretell the future, but what is sure is that none of the weeds killed by those hormone weedkillers would ever have appeared on a list of "principal importance" as put forward in this clause. They were just extremely common, pernicious weeds. The fact is that technology moved on and we found a way of ridding our fields of a particularly difficult problem in relation to agricultural production, a side effect of which was that a bird that had previously been common across most of the countryside effectively disappeared. The use of the word "principal" is, in my view, completely superfluous. The noble Baroness is right to table the amendment and I believe the Government need to consider the position very carefully.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 41 replaces and reflects what is in subsections (2) to (5) of Section 75 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act and places a duty on the Secretary of State to publish, review and revise lists of living organisms and types of habitat in England that in her opinion are of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity. The amendment seeks to extend those lists to include all living organisms and habitats that are of importance to the conservation of biodiversity. If we are to conserve and protect our biodiversity effectively, it is vital that we direct action to the habitats and species that need help most. The Government are committed to having regard to all biodiversity as outlined in Clause 40 of the Bill, and we will continue to take that commitment seriously. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, recognised, we also need to be able to target total action, including the issues of the food chain for endangered species, specifically on those species and habitats that are a particular priority for conservation of biodiversity. We are also committed to halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010.
	We must target action. For that reason we published a list of species and habitats that are of principal importance under Section 74 of the CROW Act and focused attention on those species and habitats as a result. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will recognise, that has contributed to the successes of many species and habitats such as those for the bittern, the field cricket, otters and cereal field Martians—sorry, cereal field margins, and the English partridge. I apologise; I do not think we are protecting Martians at the moment. We continue to take action to benefit those widespread species and habitats for which targeted action is not sufficient. A new planning policy statement on biodiversity and geological conservation, a new policy on ancient and native woodland and a substantial increase in investment in water and wetland management for wildlife are part of the third annual stock take of progress. We will continue to build on that.
	I do not wish to enter the debate on the future of CEH, which has been brought up before. I should like to write to noble Lords on that matter at this stage. The priority species and habitats are those identified as of principal importance in the list whose publication is required by the Bill. The amendment would still require lists of important living organisms and habitats to be published, so I am not quite clear what the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve with her amendment. We prefer to specify that they comprise those organisms and habitats that are of principal importance to the conservation of biodiversity, but take fully into account the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and both noble Baronesses, that, with regard to some species, that may include the whole food chain, because it is obviously impossible to protect a particular creature if you are going to kill off all its natural food. The Secretary of State must have regard to the advice she is given about this. I hope I have covered all the points. On the CEH, I shall to write to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank Members of the Committee who have spoken. This has been an illuminating debate, as was the Minister's reply. I thank especially the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for his contribution. The Minister referred to habitats most under threat and to those that need targeted action. However, that is not mentioned in the clause, which includes the words, "principal importance". Although the Minister says that this is a question of semantics, in the light of the threat to the CEH it is extremely important to get the emphasis right in the clause. If the Government are narrowing down the area of work, the Committee will want to concentrate on that. I await with great interest the Minister's letter about the CEH. I hope that it will reach us before Report.

The Duke of Montrose: In moving Amendment No. 282 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 288.
	Clause 43 makes it crystal clear that pesticides declared by the Secretary of State to be harmful to wildlife will not necessarily be illegal in any other context. Hence an inspector entering premises in search of those pesticides will, in effect, be saying, "I believe these prescribed substances are within these premises and I believe they are being used against wildlife".
	Under the terms of Clause 43 it will not be legal for an inspector to enter premises in search of these prescribed substances unless he believes they are being used illegally. There is a world of difference between an inspector entering, say, a farm and demanding to search a barn because he is seeking illegal pesticides, for instance, alfa chlorose—and a barn would be quite a good place to find some if any were present in the area—and that same inspector entering the farm and demanding access to all the land and buildings because he believes that certain pesticides are present and are or have been used against wildlife. In effect the burden of proof will not be possession, it will be usage. The purpose of the search is necessarily linked to the usage charge. We believe that in those circumstances possession of a search warrant is a minimum requirement.
	In another place my honourable friend James Paice raised the question of a six month delay in implementation to deal with publicity. How do the Government propose to publicise the changes that this clause will make to the keeping of particular pesticides, not just by gamekeepers but also by members of the general public? As this Bill stands, under Amendment No. 288 the Secretary of State may list pesticides which are harmful to wildlife, and that no one may have in their possession until he can prove that he has it in connection with one or more specified purposes. Any person authorised by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales is to be classed as an inspector and will have the right to enter any premises, which means the same as all premises, to seek out listed pesticides.
	We have seen many Defra Bills, but I cannot recall one where the definition of "premises" did not exclude private dwellings. In fact, Schedule 5 to this very Bill—on page 58, which deals with group 1 offences, and on page 59, which deals with group 2 offences—contains the words:
	"Nothing in this section confers power to enter a dwelling",
	and,
	"paragraph (c) does not confer any power to enter a dwelling".
	This exclusion should extend on the face of the Bill to the definition of premises for the purposes of Clause 44.
	At the sixth sitting in Committee in another place, the Minister, Jim Knight, said:
	"If it is a door to a dwelling, they must have a warrant from a justice of the peace, but if it is a gate to premises, such as to land or to a shed, they can go in and inspect".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 28/6/05; col. 187.]
	As the Minister stated that in Committee, I am surprised that the Bill as it stands does not clarify the situation for private dwellings.
	When opening the debate on Clause 48 in another place, my honourable friend Jim Paice said:
	"I make it absolutely clear that the Opposition condemn anybody who uses poison to kill birds of any species . . . It is already an offence to set poison for a bird and has been for 24 years".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 28/6/05; col. 162.]
	The Minister will not be surprised when I express our concerns that Clause 43 as it stands reverses the burden of proof. In this instance, a person is guilty of an offence if he has in his possession a pesticide containing an ingredient that is prescribed for the purposes of this section. The onus is clearly on the individual to prove that he had just cause to have this particular pesticide and to justify its intended use.
	We are grateful to the Minister for the other government amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 283 to 285. They are a welcome response to some of the concerns expressed in another place and by outside organisations. However, we still feel that, at the very least, a search warrant should be sought before entering premises is undertaken. I beg to move.

Earl Peel: Before speaking to Amendment No. 285A, which is in this group, I should like to say to the Minister that I have withdrawn Amendments Nos. 281, 286, 287 and 289. I did so because we were satisfied and grateful for Amendment No. 283, which the Minister has introduced. I should like to add that I entirely endorse what my noble friend has just said about this clause. There are real difficulties here that the Government will have to address.
	My Amendment No. 285A deals with the very wide-ranging new powers that the Bill gives to pesticide inspectors. It is important—indeed, essential—that the inspectors carry out their duties with great diligence and proper consideration. The National Farmers Union—and I declare an interest as a member of that body—rightly pointed out in its brief:
	"We are concerned that the person who legitimately has a prescribed pesticide may be treated unfairly and penalised."
	Therefore, it is essential that,
	"the interests of legitimate users of pesticides are respected."
	That point is extremely well made. Amendment No. 285A would ensure that such an inspector must have regard to any relevant code of practice. I welcome government Amendment No. 283 and the subsequent amendments, but they do not go far enough; it would be extremely helpful if the code of practice could be adhered to in the Bill.
	I shall raise one other issue. Given that the Government have stated in the Explanatory Notes that they intend to publicise the pesticides that are to be included on the precluded list, could that list be circulated to the relevant representative organisations and notices placed in the appropriate press in addition to it being made available on the Defra website? I ask the noble Lord to consider that request, as it would be extremely helpful.

Lord Bach: Up until a moment ago I thought that I had the answer to this group of amendments, but the last contribution by the noble Lady has slightly shaken me. Perhaps I will come back to that in due course, but I have a nasty feeling that she is right.
	I shall first deal with this important group of amendments. Clause 44, which deals with the powers available to inspectors when investigating the possession offence in Clause 43—which is important—appears to have caused a fair amount of concern throughout its passage through Parliament, as the noble Duke mentioned, much of which we believe to be based on comparisons between this offence under Clause 43 and welfare offences under Defra's Animal Welfare Bill. Such comparisons are flawed and are not comparing like with like. However, the Government have recognised the overall strength of feeling on this matter, and we have tabled three amendments in an endeavour to go as far as we believe sensible to enshrine safeguards. I will speak to those amendments in a moment, but I will first address the three related non-government amendments to this clause, Amendments Nos. 282, 285A and 288.
	Amendment No. 282 seeks to restrict the powers of entry available to inspectors when they are investigating the offence of possessing a proscribed pesticide—the Clause 43 offence—by requiring them to have obtained a warrant from a justice of the peace. Let me make it absolutely clear that inspectors acting under this clause do not have powers of entry into private dwellings without first having obtained a warrant from a justice of the peace. By virtue of Clause 44(4), paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to the Food and Environment Protection Act—I admit that is not the easiest reference in the world—that applies to inspectors enforcing this offence as it does to inspectors operating under Part 3 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Paragraph 7 states:
	"An officer may only enter a dwelling for the purpose of performing his functions . . . if a justice has issued a warrant authorising him to enter and search that dwelling.
	It goes on to list the circumstances in which a justice may issue such a warrant; namely, where an inspector has reasonable grounds for believing that there is present in the dwelling anything to which his functions relate and either it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant entry to the dwelling, or such a person has unreasonably refused entry, or such a person is unlikely to grant it unless a warrant is produced, or the purpose of entry may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless an officer arriving at the dwelling cannot obtain immediate access to it.
	It would in our view be inappropriate to seek to restrict inspectors' powers of inspection to an even greater degree by requiring them to obtain a warrant before they can enter any premises. "Dwelling houses", yes of course; but we think that "any premises" goes too far. Pesticide inspectors carrying out enforcement activities under their existing powers under the FEPA are already allowed entry to land—other than private dwellings—without the need for a warrant. The purpose of the current power is to check that storage and use of pesticides are in compliance with Defra's Pesticides Safety Directorate approvals. Therefore, we fail to see why this offence should be treated any differently from other pesticides offences in this regard.
	Amendment No. 285A seeks to introduce a provision for inspectors to have regard to any relevant codes of practice issued by the Secretary of State when exercising their powers. I have thought long and hard about what could possibly justify the power that we were going to take upon ourselves in regard to that. The noble Earl is, in my view, absolutely right. As the wording of his amendment may not be perfect, I invite him to withdraw his amendment today and we will come back at Report with, we hope, agreed wording. He seems to have a good point when he says that, if there is a code of practice, which there is, inspectors should have regard to it. I hope he will accept that we agree with his commonsensical attitude to that.

Lord Bach: We will meet this point again a little later on. I will take the same attitude to it then as I do now.
	Amendment No. 288 would amend the entry powers available to inspectors via a different route from that taken by Amendment No. 282. It does so by amending the definition of "premises" in Clause 45. At present, the definition reads:
	"'Premises' include land (including buildings), movable structures, vehicles, vessels, aircraft and other means of transport."
	The amendment would add the caveat that "premises" excludes private dwellings. The legal effect would be to exclude the power to enter dwellings altogether, even under warrant. Noble Lords will appreciate that I have already made it clear that, in relation to this offence, an inspector should not be able to enter a person's home without having obtained a warrant from a court, and there are quite extensive constraints on the circumstances in which an inspector can obtain such a warrant. I think that the Committee will agree that that is right and proper.
	The intention behind Amendment No. 288 might, however, be to go further than I have already stated. Its legal effect would be to exclude the right to enter private dwellings altogether—that is, with or without a warrant. I am sure that that is not what is intended, as a wrongdoer would only have to keep pesticides in his house in order to escape detection. No one wants that to be the case for a moment, but we believe that that would be the effect of Amendment No. 288.
	Clause 44 as it stands contains sufficient safeguards to make this amendment unnecessary. I appreciate the positive motive behind the amendment, but its actual effect would go further than it would be appropriate to accept. However, we are sympathetic to the concerns expressed by noble Lords about the rights of the individual who might face investigation for a pesticide possession offence. As we said in another place, inspectors' powers would be looked at carefully over the Recess. That further consideration has now resulted in the introduction of the three government amendments referred to. These amendments clarify the powers available to inspectors who are investigating pesticide possession offences under Clause 43. They introduce a condition of reasonable suspicion, remove a power to require a statement of truth, and clarify the rights of the person in the event that a substance is seized from the premises. The amendments ensure an appropriate balance between the powers of the inspectors and an individual's civil rights.
	Amendment No. 283 seeks to rule out from the Bill the possibility of speculative visits. A great deal of effort has been expended in finding a form of words which achieves the right balance between protecting the individual's rights and not constraining inspectors to such a degree that they could not enter unless they believed that a prescribed pesticide would be found on a particular premises. For example, we do not want to prevent inspectors entering where a poisoned bait has been found at or near several properties where pesticides are likely to be used, and it was not certain on which of those properties the pesticide would be found.
	With the amendment, subsection (1) would read:
	"An inspector may . . . enter any premises if he has reasonable grounds to suspect that he may find there evidence that an offence is being committed under section 43".
	An inspector could therefore be challenged to justify his grounds for suspicion. It should also be borne in mind that any inspectors who investigate a suspected pesticide offence will be operating according to a publicly available code of practice, setting out how inspectors should conduct themselves, and giving details of how to complain should anyone be unhappy with the inspection. I hope that Amendment No. 283, together with a code of practice along the lines of the draft which I am told has recently been lodged in the Library, will go some way towards reassuring Members of the Committee who are anxious about the possibility that landowners may be subject to harassment or unwarranted random visits.
	We have looked closely at the powers available to an inspector once he is on the premises. All the powers in Schedule 2 to FEPA have been scrutinised carefully to see whether any parts could be disapplied with respect to the Clause 43 pesticides offence. As a result of that further scrutiny, Amendment No. 284 removes the ability to require a statement of truth when questioning people about substances found on their premises. I accept that this power is not required, bearing in mind the power to require information already in Clause 44(1)(b). In addition, our existing pesticide inspectors, who act under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, have commented that in practice the power to require "statements of truth" is not commonly used. It was therefore decided that this power could usefully be removed.
	Amendment No. 285 introduces three new subsections which clarify the rights of the person in the event that a substance is seized from his premises as evidence of an offence under Clause 43, by setting out the procedure relating to its retention. This will ensure that property rights are not eroded by the investigation process. A person may make a claim to have the seized substance returned by, for example, providing evidence that he has a defence under Clause 43(3).
	The time frame set out in these subsections would allow for a substance to be tested to ascertain whether it contains a prescribed pesticide. If prosecution proceedings are subsequently pursued, the substance may be retained for up to 28 days after the court has determined the outcome. If proceedings are not pursued and a claim for the substances' return is not received, they may be retained for up to 28 days after the time for bringing such proceedings has expired, and then destroyed or otherwise disposed of. Of course we appreciate the concerns over individual rights that lie behind all the non-government amendments in the group but, as a result of the further changes that we are endeavouring to introduce today, these concerns should by and large be allayed. I am grateful to the noble Earl for his thanks. In due course, I shall move the government amendments.
	I was asked about the time scale generally by the noble Duke, in terms of the list of pesticides to be prescribed. I am advised that "prescribed" is the right expression. The noble Viscount, who sits in his place on the Cross Benches with much experience, nods his head; I am delighted to have to tell the noble Lady that, on this occasion, she is wrong. I thought that she was right for a moment, I have to say.
	The Secretary of State may prescribe pesticides only if she is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do so in the interests of protecting wild birds or wild animals from harm. However, no pesticides will be banned by the Bill itself. When it is enacted, a power will be provided for the Secretary of State to make an order when the prescribed pesticide ingredients will be listed. A full consultation will be carried out before any pesticide ingredient is listed on any order, and it is likely to be nine to 12 months before it comes into place. I think the noble Duke was particularly interested in that.
	It is not considered appropriate to ban the possession of all pesticides for obvious reasons. Given the wide-reaching penalties available for that offence, it would be disproportionate to widen the offence in that way. It is important that there is evidence to support the prescription of any pesticide ingredient. I think that that answers the question posed by the noble Duke.

The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for his efforts to answer so many of our wide-ranging questions. So much happens today that many of the issues are grouped together in amendments. We are all particularly grateful that the Minister has agreed to accept the general sense of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel on a code of practice. We are also grateful for the government amendments moved by the Minister.
	I wonder whether a few words on the face of the Bill would make the question of entry to a private dwelling clearer. I suppose one could say that the public should be aware that if anybody knocks on their door demanding entrance, they could ask to be shown a warrant. I do not know whether people are necessarily geared up on that, or whether the inspector might say, "I am not here under the National Environment and Rural Communities Act; I am quoting from the schedule of the Food or Environmental Protection Act". It gets a bit complicated.
	Another thing that interested me from what the Minister said is that the inspector could turn up and say, "I am checking up on the storage and use of pesticides in your premises", not on whether anybody has poisoned anything locally. There is a government guideline on the storage and use of pesticides that is open to inspection. I should declare an interest as a farmer; I store herbicides. It is possible that my wife might store pesticides for the garden. I suppose I should take the blame for that, but it is always difficult to know whether every little pot and jar has been cleared.
	I am glad that we got to the bottom of the question of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, which had us considerably worried. I thank the Minister for what he has said, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Earl Peel: The amendment attempts to define the meaning of the word "nest" in this part of the Bill, which refers to the 1981 Act. The birds included in the Bill that reuse their nests are the golden and white-tailed eagle and osprey. The Government have the power to extend the list, and could cover such ground nesting birds as hen harriers or merlins. Such birds tend to return to the same area to nest, but do not necessarily use the same specific nest site. The same applies to the golden eagle. I know of one golden eagle nest in Scotland, where the birds nested for three or four years. Sometimes there is a build-up of parasites in the nest and the birds might move to another site, but it may possibly come back to the original nest site.
	I can see a situation possibly arising where relatively large tracts of heather moorland—I declare an interest as somebody who owns and manages heather moorland in the north of England—could become permanently protected under the Bill, thus prohibiting large areas of heather from being burned because of the protection of nests in that area. In reality, however, if a previous nest has been burnt out or ceased to exist for whatever reason, birds such as merlins and hen harriers will, like most other ground-nesting species, happily readjust and find a nest site nearby. It is important not to be over-restrictive, given the importance of heather burning as a key ingredient of good moor management. The amendment simply tries to bring a reasonable time limit to the restriction. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I speak to Amendment No. 291, which is grouped with this amendment. It simply adds the swallow to the list of birds which may well reuse their nests—or sites, in which category the swallow would be regarded under this legislation.
	I have chosen the swallow in particular because, in Forts Orchard in Chilthorne Domer where I used to live, there was a pair of newly constructed houses. Both houses had swallows' nests constructed on them within a year of being built, which I thought a tremendous triumph—not least for the swallows, which were quite brave. The people in the right-hand house were delighted with the swallows moving in and, despite the swallow droppings all down the front, continued to be delighted to have such a wonderful species choosing to live on their house. The people in the left-hand house, however, felt quite differently about the swallow droppings. Despite the swallows making every effort to lay eggs and hatch their young, the occupants continued to knock down the nests as fast as they were built.
	The swallow is in severe decline, for whatever reason. Perhaps the Minister will have some more information on this from her officials, as my amendment refers particularly about swallows. Going back to what we were saying about biodiversity, any bird—particularly a bird in decline—which reuses its nest in the UK should be worthy of protection. My amendment simply aims to probe the Government as to which birds are protected, which are not and why that is.

Lord Carter: My Lords, it is important to have some guidance from the Government on the point at which a nest becomes an "ex-nest", as it were. The briefing we received, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, pointed out, says that:
	"The amendment seeks to address the issue of the length of time a nest can be unoccupied and still remain a nest".
	The briefing goes on:
	"There is no clear point at which the distinction between a nest and an ex-nest can readily be made".
	When I read this, I was irresistibly reminded of the "dead parrot" sketch in "Monty Python". One can hear the occupier saying, "This nest is dead, it is kaput, it is finished, it is no longer with us". The inspector would turn around and say, "The nest is not dead; it is just unused and might be resurrected". It is extremely important, if the "five years" is correct, that the Minister spells out exactly when a nest becomes an ex-nest.

Baroness Byford: I support my noble friend's amendment. In another place there was some discussion about whether a nest was being used as a nest or whether it was no longer used as a nest and could be used again. I believe that my honourable friend Jim Paice originally suggested three years for that. We have had, as I am sure have other noble Lords, briefings from various organisations on this. The RSPB suggested that a five-year limit would be appropriate. It is not as simple as one might think on the face of it, because it is clearly an offence already for anybody to disturb a prescribed nest and take the eggs or the young ones from it. That provision exists, but it is possible for birds to move to another nest within the close vicinity and maybe vacate that nest for a time and to return to it afterwards.
	I have two other points that I would like to contribute to the debate. The first is on the question of safety. Nests are built in trees. Trees grow old, fall down or need their branches lopping. I am sure the noble Lord would not wish trees to remain unsafe and, as the Bill stands, I understand that it would not be possible for what I call "normal" health and safety precautions to be taken; the same would apply if somebody wanted to re-site a nest so that the general public could view it, which has been done already in one part of the country. It seems a nonsense for the Bill to restrict that being done.
	My third point is on the question of land management, particularly for land managers. I highlight the difficulty with bracken clearance. The noble Baroness will remember very well—she has responded to me—our debates on the difficulty of controlling bracken, particularly in the light of the fact that nowadays we are more worried about under-grazing than we were in the past, and that there will be more bracken which will get stronger and older and become a much more serious problem.
	I recently received a letter from John Thorley from the National Sheep Association, who followed our discussions on 5 December. He says in his letter that the issue which concerns him is that,
	"there appears to be uncertainty about whether bracken is carcinogenic and yet my understanding is that it is carcinogenic in three parts . . . the fronds, the spores and the roots.
	"There is then the issue of animals eating it and again it is known that it is poisonous to cattle and sheep and whereas, as I understand it, very young shoots do little damage, the mature plant is quite toxic".
	The question was discussed in another place, although I have opened it slightly further. It is a point we would like the Baroness to clarify when she responds. Those on these Benches do not want to condone anybody wrecking nests. There is no question of that, but we want greater clarification. I support my noble friend.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I will deal first with the last points of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I can work only on the basis of somebody who is not personally able to establish whether it is true that bracken causes cancer or has damaging properties in relation to people or animals. I would be grateful if any correspondence could be directed to me so that I can get the department to look at it; I wrote to those who took part in the debate at Starred Questions on that subject. I would very happily look at any further evidence.
	These two amendments relate to Clause 46, which seeks to extend the protection afforded to nests of birds which reuse their nests. Amendment No. 291 seeks to add four species to the new Schedule ZA1, which lists those birds whose nests may not be taken, damaged or destroyed at any time during the year. Amendment No. 290 seeks to limit this protection to a maximum of five years.
	If I can take the second amendment first, the additional species proposed for inclusion are the red-billed chough, peregrine falcon, barn owl, and swallow. All of these species are amber listed, according to the list of birds of conservation concern produced by statutory conservation agencies and the RSPB. I too would like to place on the record thanks for the information provided by the RSPB and others with a close interest. Amber listing means that the birds have unfavourable conservation status within Europe. However, there are signs that their populations within the UK are slowly increasing. Three of the species were proposed for addition to the schedule during Commons Committee and Report stages, with a further two that have now been dropped, I presume because they did not meet the basic criteria; that is, they do not reuse the same nest site each year.
	The new amendment proposes the addition of the swallow species, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred, among others. While it is true that the chough, peregrine falcon and barn owl return to the same nest, and will use it if available, the fact of the matter is that if it has been damaged or destroyed, they will build a new nest nearby just as readily.
	As colleagues explained during the Commons stages, these are important species and deserve to be protected, which is why it is an offence to disturb them during the breeding season. However, we do not feel that it appropriate to protect their nests all year round. That would lead to thousands of sites needing to be monitored, which is unrealistic. The swallow, on the other hand—as the noble Baroness pointed out—is slightly different. It returns to the same site each year but these sites may become less suitable if the old nests are not cleared. Old nests may be reused, if they can be rebuilt and used again; however, most are built anew each year. If the old nests cannot be cleared to make room for the new, it will become increasingly difficult for the birds to construct new nests, particularly when faced with an adjoining property where the people living there are not so happy to have the swallows as external tenants.
	Clause 46 seeks to protect those very rare species that reuse their nests, and whose populations would be severely threatened if even one of the nests were destroyed outside the breeding season. That is why their nests are being readily monitored by conservation organisations. The same cannot be said of the species proposed in this amendment for addition.
	Amendment No. 290 is identical to an amendment tabled in the Commons, which was withdrawn. We have no new arguments against it. We still believe it is misguided and will serve no useful purpose. As the 1981 Act stands, nests are protected only while they are in use or are being built. That means that as soon as the young chicks fledge and fly off, anyone can destroy the nest, for any reason or purpose. When the birds return the following year, the nest has gone, and their breeding success may be put at risk. Amendment No. 290 seeks to limit the protection to a period of five years from when the nest was reconstructed or last used.
	Some birds—for example, eagles—can use several nests and may return to a nest even though it looks as if it has been abandoned for some time.It is important to remember that it is possible to apply for a licence under Section 16 of the 1981 Act, if there are good reasons for removing a nest which appears to be abandoned. Each application can thus be considered on its merits, balancing the likelihood of the birds' return and the impact of removing the nest with the benefits of doing so. It may prove possible to obtain a licence even before five years have passed. I do not consider the necessity of applying for a licence in such cases overly bureaucratic, because the listed birds are rare within England and Wales. Their rarity, their ecological importance, and their habit of reusing nests, are precisely why they are listed on the schedule.
	There is also a practical difficulty in accepting the amendment—or, indeed, any amendment that seeks to restrict the protection to a particular period. How is it possible for an enforcement authority to know for how long a nest has been abandoned? How do we know when to start counting—not all nests of birds listed by the new offence are observed all year round in order to obtain that information?
	The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 has avoided that problem by using the term, "habitually used", but what may be habit for one species may be different for another. As I said, eagles may appear to have abandoned a nest for several years. The decision must rest on the balance between the purpose—for example, public health—and the likely impact on the breeding success of the protected species. The abandonment or otherwise of the nest is an important but not the only factor.
	The noble Earl asked whether only birds listed in Schedule 1 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 can be listed in Schedule ZA1. Any species of bird that reuses its nest year after year can be so listed. The provision has been worded to apply to specific species that use their nests year after year and it is not envisaged that it would apply to species that return to a specific area but build new nests each year. I hope that the noble Earl is satisfied by that distinction. There are licensing grounds for public health and safety to remove a nest. The licensing provisions in Section 16 will apply to that new offence, as they apply to other offences in Section 1. Nests protected under those provisions will be protected in perpetuity. However, the licensing provisions of Section 16 will apply, so that licences can be sought for listed purposes for nests, once abandoned. Where Natural England or the Countryside Council for Wales is of the opinion that an area that is important for rare birds is of special interest, it will notify the area as a SSSI, bringing with it all the protection that follows.
	As long as normal operation on the land surrounding a nest does not cause damage or destruction to a nest, it will not constitute an offence. However, an offence could arise from the disturbance of birds. If it can be proved that bracken is killing cattle and sheep, the owners of the animals can seek a licence to remove it.
	I have given a long, detailed answer because I know that many Members of the Committee have a detailed interest in the matter. I hope that my range of reassurances will satisfy them and that the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I declare an interest as vice president of Birdlife International and of the RSPB. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, on her passionate words against the wild bird trade and I share many of her views on the conservation arguments. The trade threatens many species, while welfare standards for the birds concerned are appalling. Indeed, it has been assessed that something in excess of 60 per cent die somewhere along the very long chain from being captured in the forests where they should be flying and being transported across the land and sea and through the air before they even reach our shores and are quarantined. A large number then die in quarantine itself. It is a wasteful trade.
	For many years in my previous work with the RSPB and Birdlife International I tried hard to find a way to make this trade sustainable. I worked closely with many of the countries whose birds are taken for the European and global trade to find a means by which it could be made into a business that was both humane and could provide a living for the often poor populations living in the forests of the world. However, I have to say that we pretty much failed to find any way of establishing a sustainable trade. Many of the birds covered by the CITES regulation and about which information is available demonstrate that the taking of such birds is far from sustainable. The situation for those species not covered by the CITES regulation is completely unknown. We simply do not know what the taking of large numbers of such birds is doing to the populations within their own countries. Little evidence can be provided to support the notion that local populations should be able to make a living out of the taking of birds. Often the local trapper gets only a pittance. The money goes to the middle man and to those outside the country of origin of the bird.
	This is a wasteful and inhumane trade. While for 15 years we have tried hard to make it sustainable, we have been unable to do so. The opportunity now provided by the temporary ban imposed in Europe is one that I urge the Government to grasp with both hands. They should look in the face of the wild bird traders and see the practice as unnecessary. It is true that the European market drives the trade and that if there were no market for these birds, they would not be traded. Although there would be some illegal importation, it is far easier to catch illegal imports if no cover is provided by the legal trade.
	Evidence from elsewhere in the world makes this clear. In an uncharacteristically brave move, in 1992 the United States Government virtually banned the trade in wild birds by placing strong sustainability criteria on any imports. The belief at the time was that that would simply drive the trade underground and there would be much more illegal importation, particularly across the Mexican and other borders with South America. However, that simply has not been the case. The market has dried up, and while there is a limited amount of illegal trading, it is very small by comparison with what there was previously. So for once we have a model from across the pond that we would do well to consider. I hope that we can persuade the Minister, if not with this amendment but certainly with the argument, to use this opportunity to ensure that both here and in Europe the need simply to bring a halt to this trade is accepted. It feels a little like the slave trade in the past. It is inhumane, wasteful and demeaning in the modern world.

Lord Bach: No one can fail to be impressed by the passion with which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, moved her amendment or the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke in support of it. The strength of feeling on this issue was demonstrated also by the noble Duke in his few remarks. We understand the strength of feeling on this issue in Committee and beyond. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to my noble friend Lord Stratford, whom we all miss. I remember well the way in which he spoke on this issue some months ago in this House. The noble Baroness and I can both imagine how he would have put his case today—with great passion, strength and with much wit. I have no doubt on which side of the argument he would have stood if he had been here.
	I should try to explain how we see Amendment No. 292. To some extent, it is linked to Amendment No. 293A which will be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in due course. The amendment increases protection for wild birds in trade and amends Section 1(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to ban the possession of live or dead wild birds from any country of the world. It has two parts: the first is to tighten up the circumstances under which it is permissible to possess wild birds and the second is to tighten up the circumstances under which wild birds may be killed, taken or possessed under the terms of a licence.
	I shall take each part in turn. The current measure contained in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence to possess any wild bird which has not been lawfully taken from the wild in Europe. The amendment attempts to extend that offence so that it applies to birds from any country in the world. The amendment is, however, a little confusing to us, as it depends on the word "lawfully" which is defined in the defence found in Section 1(3) and which relates to member state legislation implementing the Birds Directive. As it would not be an offence under this legislation to take a bird from the wild in, for example, Africa, the defence in Section 1(3) would apply and such a bird could be lawfully possessed in England and Wales. That is a detail. It is quite clear what the noble Baroness is arguing. Indeed, she said so clearly and explicitly that the intention behind her amendment is the importation of wild birds.
	I should remind the Committee that powers are already available under existing EU legislation to enable the Secretary of State to protect exotic species from the consequences of unsustainable trade. It is neither practicable nor desirable for the Government to attempt to regulate the capture and transportation of animals within territories that fall outside their jurisdiction. We believe that it is inappropriate to use domestic legislation, which is designed to protect European and native wildlife, to protect populations of wild birds in non-EU countries.
	A general prohibition on trade would raise serious practical and legal difficulties for us given our obligations under the EU treaty and as members of the World Trade Organisation. And, of course, not all birds are threatened by trade. It could be argued that it is more appropriate to protect those species that are vulnerable than to introduce a measure that is applicable to all species. The international trade in some 1,700 bird species is already strictly regulated under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES, which has been referred to.

Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention. I will try to find the answer for her—if not today, then shortly. CITES is implemented within the EU and, we believe, provides a necessary mechanism for protecting species against over-exploitation through unsustainable trade. There is a general view that it is one of the most important and successful international instruments for protecting global biodiversity. We do not want to adopt measures that would seek to undermine its effectiveness. It provides the mechanism through the significant trade process for ensuring that the trade in wild-taken species is sustainable, and we heard what my noble friend Lady Young said about the sustainability or otherwise of this trade. Action has been taken in the past against those countries that fail to trade sustainably by imposing trade bans or quotas, and we will continue to support such action in the future. The European Commission also uses its powers to make regulations to prohibit the import of species for which trade is considered unsustainable, and those are updated on a regular basis.
	Subsection (3) of the noble Baroness's new clause repeals four of the permitted purposes for which licences can be issued on a selective basis to control or possess wild birds, provided that there is no alternative solution and that the number of birds covered by the licence is small. Without such licences it would be impossible to control pest species such as Canada geese, which threaten collections of rare wild birds; falconers could no longer practise their ancient art; and public exhibitions or competitions involving avicultural birds would no longer be held. All those activities are allowed by the EU legislation, the EC Wild Birds Directive, implemented by the 1981 Act. The annual reporting process, required under Article 9 of the directive, allows the Commission to keep a close eye on the scale of permitted activities.

Lord Bach: I do not know the answer to the noble Baroness's perfectly proper question. If I may, I will write to her in the same letter that I will write to my noble friend Lady Young when I have found out what the answer is regarding other EU member states. The arguments that have been employed so powerfully today need to be answered in written form, and I will ensure that is done before the next stage of the Bill.
	I was going on to say that I am satisfied that our licensing activities are set at an appropriate level—and by "our" I mean the UK—and that they are necessary to allow traditional practices to continue in a sustainable fashion. Seriously to curtail these pastimes would be inappropriate, especially as there has been no prior consultation until this stage. Let me remind the Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, already has, that there is a ban on importing all wild birds until 31 May, as a precautionary measure. The question of whether this temporary ban should be established on a more permanent basis was raised at the Environment Council on 2 December 2005 and the Commission was asked to report back on it at its next meeting in March.
	In the meantime, we are arranging a meeting with key stakeholders to gauge the likely impact of such a ban. I hope the noble Baroness will take some comfort from that. We therefore feel that it would be premature to introduce any stricter measures in relation to importing wild birds, pending the development of a wider EU position on this matter. I have done my best to answer, as sympathetically as I can, the points raised by the noble Baroness. There is obviously some movement in relation to the EU meeting I have just referred to. As the noble Baroness states, this is as much an EU issue as a UK issue.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am always concerned when I am congratulated on my passion, because that usually precedes an unfavourable reply. The Minister has talked about the Secretary of State being able to do something when there is an unsustainable trade. I believe the Minister needs to take away the message that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, very powerfully pointed out—I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution—this trade is, in essence, unsustainable: there is no such thing as a sustainable trade in wild birds. The noble Baroness spoke of the fact that Bird Life International had spent some time trying to make the trade sustainable, but could not find a way of doing so.
	The Minister further talked about developing countries' traditional practices, but before the EU and this country were such a burgeoning market for this trade, there was no such tradition. That is why these countries have seen the populations of their most exotic and colourful birds plummet, in some cases to zero. If the Minister had been with me to hear the case made by the Friends of Karoo National Park, who are desperately trying to reintroduce just five pairs of scarlet macaws, where previously there had been hundreds within living memory, he would understand that there is no such thing as a sustainable wild bird trade.
	I fully accept that my amendment is wrong in detail. It was merely meant to start the debate. I hope that those involved, such as the RSPB, will now help me to draft something far more appropriate. I would at this point like to pay tribute to the Wild Parrot Trust, which has been unstinting and energetic in drawing to everybody's attention the appalling situation that exists. I shall of course withdraw the amendment because I recognise its shortcomings.

Lord Carter: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. It would be helpful if, when my noble friend the Minister writes about this subject, he could indicate what vehicle the Government would use if they decided to introduce a ban? We are waiting now for the EU decision. Would that then have to be done through this Bill, another Bill, or through an order?

Earl Peel: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for having spelt out the inadequacies of the amendment. Clearly, as drafted, it would have a serious impact not just on game birds but also on coarse fishing. Like the noble Lord I made inquiries in connection with the amendment. One of its by-products would be that one might require a licence to release sheep on to a hill. That would cause considerable difficulties and would not be a particularly attractive proposal, but I like the idea of requiring a licence to let dogs off leads and to let cats out at night. That could be a positive by-product of the amendment. I have real sympathy with what the noble Lord proposes and the amendment could be the basis for something worthwhile. However, as he pointed out, as presently drafted it would be totally impractical.

Baroness Byford: I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for introducing the amendment. I do not want to go over the ground that he covered but I wish to ask the Minister some questions. Will the lawful reintroduction of species into this country cover, for example, wild boars which have unfortunately been let loose and are likely to become a problem in the part of the country where they have been released? What about wild mink that were reintroduced? I believe that consideration is being given to reintroducing wolves into parts of Scotland. I do not know whether the noble Lord's amendment covers those species but we need to consider the effect of introduced species on native species and the problems that they might cause.
	If I remember correctly, the noble Lord's amendment also covers plant and plantlife. I have perhaps moved to another amendment—if I have to I will wait. If it is to do with plants and reintroducing species, what will happen to the garden centres and the bulb growers who obviously trade internationally and use non-native species? At the moment, however, I should like to concentrate primarily on the animal side.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is nodding his head and I am sure that he did not mean plantlife to be involved in that way. Those of us who have come across the problems of Japanese knotweed and of the crabs crawling up the Thames Estuary just recently will know that there are indeed problems around that need to be addressed. But if the amendment is going to include plants then the noble Lord or the Government need to give consideration to what happens to the proper, lawful trade that goes on in the horticultural world because I am sure that he does not want in any way to make life more difficult for them, provided those plants are approved for entry into this country.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I rise briefly to speak to this amendment. In doing so I must declare that about 18 months ago my husband worked briefly for the organisation that was thinking of reintroducing wolves into Scotland. This amendment raises some interesting issues. I am particularly glad to see social and economic wellbeing included in the amendment. The reintroduction of the wolf—I believe that this amendment does cover Scotland—would have required fencing off quite vast tracts. The impact on the surrounding sheep farmers besides and on the biodiversity of the area should undoubtedly be considered, quite apart from the questions of access, which are quite rightly Scottish. If this amendment does cover Scotland, there is obviously the issue of devolved matters and so on. The amendment raises some interesting issues and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

Baroness Byford: I apologise that the groupings on the next couple of amendments were not quite correct. I am grateful to the Minister, because we have notified him of the changes. On this occasion, I am dealing specifically with Amendment No. 293A, on the import of exotic birds. We have a series of six or seven amendments on this very important topic. I am encouraged by the Government's response to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. However, could we not have the consultation a bit quicker rather than have to wait 15 months for it? If it were possible to have it sooner, that would be better.
	The aim of the amendment is threefold. First, that,
	"the trade in that species does not constitute a threat to the conservation of that species or of any other listed species",
	secondly,
	"that the method of capture used for obtaining specimens from the wild did not involve undue suffering",
	and thirdly,
	"that the means of transport from the place of capture into the United Kingdom shall meet criteria for welfare as may be specified by the Secretary of State".
	I suspect that we shall cover quite a lot of the ground from the previous amendment, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. So I shall slightly précis my comments.
	Amendment No.293A looks in particular at the question of the import of exotic birds. It is tabled to address two major problems: the control of the wild bird trade and the consequential treatment of traded birds. The trade in wild exotic bird species is beset by problems. The wild bird trade is huge and CITES is unable to monitor effectively the numbers of birds taken for trade from the wild. We need only to look at the present figures. The mortality rate of caught birds is estimated to be as high as 60 per cent. Far from contributing to conservation, we believe that the trade is detrimental to it. The trade is a major conservation threat to globally threatened species—a subject on which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, spoke earlier.
	As UK practice stands, the CITES lists of protected birds are appendices to the EC regulations. Those appendices then become annexes to UK regulations. Annexe A is a list of the species most threatened by the world bird trade, and Annexe D is a list of the least threatened. In order to trade within the UK, traders need only to apply for a permit—an Article 10 certificate—to trade in birds listed under Annexe A. Birds listed in Schedule 4 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are also protected. Traders in those birds have a burden of proof to show documentary evidence that they are legally acquired. Yet birds not covered under Annexe A or Schedule 4 can be traded without restriction. The World Parrot Society states:
	"Existing regulations are only partially enforceable and consequently fail to protect the species they target. CITES' track record suggests that the regulations are not based on current scientific data, they are easily by-passed, they are only partially enforced, non-compliance is generally tolerated and sanctions are rarely implemented".
	Our amendment addresses these problems of laxity in legislation. It is drafted along similar lines to the US Wild Bird Conservation Act 1992 and it would prohibit the importation of any bird under Annexe A. Subject to appropriate parliamentary procedure, it would also give the Secretary of State powers to add Annexe C, and any other species of birds not indigenous to the UK, to the list of birds prohibited to be imported. Since 1992, wild bird imports into the United States have dropped by 88 per cent. The US legislation, as we mentioned earlier, has been a real success. Far from driving that trade underground, as some might argue, both trade and the welfare of the birds have improved. The Act has been shown to benefit legitimate bird dealers by stemming the flood of wild caught birds into the American pet market. The importation of those wild birds dropped from 700,000 in the 1980s to a mere—though still far too many—80,000 in 1994.
	I am grateful to three organisations: Birds First refers in its briefing to the level of mortality in the caught wild live bird trade; the RSPB also quotes 60 per cent; and figures up to 75 per cent are quoted by the Environmental Protection Agency. Parrot-like birds tend to progress from Annexe B to Annexe A-listing on CITES, since there are no effective controls on the trade in the countries in which they are trafficked. Similarly, various Amazon parrots and cockatoos have recently been transferred from B to A-listing, as they have become rarer. I would also like to thank the Bio Veterinary Group, whose members are professional investigators, biologists and consultants, for its full support of this amendment. It also highlights the drop of 88 per cent of wild birds imported into America and raises the continuing problems of the importation of wild birds.
	The pet trade's creating opportunities for the release of non-native species into the environment poses a subsequent ongoing threat to indigenous wildlife, something that we did not talk about much earlier but know has been a problem. Wild bird trade carries an unnecessary animal and public health risk, something that we did touch on. Serious zoonotic infections such as avian flu should not be underestimated. Again, queries have been raised by the Animal Protection Agency; it has grave views on the Government's proposals for legalising pet markets, which will obviously contain many exotic animals. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: I look forward to debating the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned with her when the Animal Welfare Bill is debated in this House, which—who knows?—may not be that far away. It is a joy that we look forward to with eager anticipation.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for moving the amendment in the way that she did. It seeks to introduce a new clause after Clause 48—that is, between the sections of the Bill relating to protection of birds and invasive non-native species. In response to Amendment No. 292, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, I did my best to explain the existing controls on imports in the CITES regulations, and I shall not repeat them. In addition to seeking to ban trade in exotic birds, the amendment also contains welfare provisions relating to their capture and transportation. Everyone knows that the capture and transportation of live birds in some countries can and does lead to undue suffering, but it is not easy to regulate this by imposing conditions on importation. Ultimately, it is for the government of the exporting country to take the necessary corrective measures to regulate those activities, but I accept at once that there is a lot more that we can do to encourage such action. Her amendment would insert a series of additional measures that at best overlap, and sometimes contradict, existing measures to regulate the trade in exotic species. We believe that that would insert an additional level of complexity that would confuse both traders and administrators alike, thereby undermining the effectiveness of existing control on the trade in exotic birds.

Baroness Byford: In the last analysis I accept, but I feel that it is also the responsibility of the country where the birds arrive. The answer can come in writing, but I want to know what sort of catches or precautions the Government have to stop people bringing in exotic birds that are not looked after in the accepted manner. We need some evidence on what is currently happening. That would help enormously before we returned to the Bill on Report, when we shall consider this section of amendments in greater detail. I understand that the exporting country has to get its own house in order first, but a country cannot export unless someone is receiving. We as a receiving country must have some clarification about what is happening now, and how to make better strides. I am grateful to others who spoke, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Byford: With the leave—and for the ease—of the House, in moving Amendment No. 293B I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 293E and 293F at the same time because they all deal with the same topic. I apologise for the error; they should have been in the same group. I am particularly grateful for the support, help and briefing that I have received from many organisations. These amendments do one and the same thing—they are two possible solutions to the same problem. The fact that we have two is an indication of how important we think the problem of harmful, invasive non-native species is.
	In the first instance, I will refer mainly to the grey squirrel. The American grey squirrel was introduced to the British Isles at the end of the 19th century. It has no natural predators or diseases in Europe, and has now spread throughout Europe—across Italy and towards Switzerland and the French borders. The grey squirrel is a significant environmental pest. It attacks forests, orchard trees, shrubs and woodland birds' eggs and young. We are all aware of the drastic effect it has had on our beloved red squirrel. The red squirrel has been driven out of much of the British Isles by the competition for food and habitat and the spread of the grey squirrel-carried squirrel pox virus.
	There is a complex cluster of international law and conventions that goes some way to addressing the problems of the grey squirrel, but on closer inspection there are huge gaps between the rulings, conventions and directives. The Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species—CITES—established in 1963 to protect endangered species through the control of trade, does not offer the red squirrel protection against international trade. But the UK could apply for the red squirrel to be listed under the CITES rules, giving it greater status. Why has this not been done as a matter of course? The demise of the red squirrel has been with us for some time.
	The red squirrel is protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, but that only offers protection to listed species from direct harm by man. The animal's habitat is not protected in UK law. Yet, from the consultation with the European squirrel initiative—I thank Mr Roger Cook for his great help on this matter—I have learned that, in the past, EU and UK officials have frequently said that it is not possible to add the red squirrel to the necessary annexe in EU law. In 2003, however, the Berne convention committed to improving the control of non-native species, and lists red squirrels as a protected species.
	However, there is another dead-end in the protection of red squirrels. The habitat directive, which purports to turn the Berne convention into law, does not list the red squirrel as a protected species. Therefore, an EU-protected species would take precedence over a species protected only by the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I am sure that that is not what is intended. The refusal to add the red squirrel to the annexe seems extraordinary given that the preamble to the EU Berne convention habitats directive states that,
	"technical and scientific progress mean that it must be possible to adapt the Annexes; whereas a procedure should be established whereby the Council can amend the Annexes".
	The lack of consistency in the protection of the red squirrel is a serious problem.
	An even greater problem is the Government's failure to take the opportunity in this Bill to address not only this issue but other issues and the failure to listen to some of the recent international consultations. Following a meeting of the Berne group of experts on alien invasive species in Majorca in December 2005, the standing committee of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats recommended that the contracting parties,
	"encourage European and national institutions to support and further fund studies into the impacts on forests, Red squirrels and other biological diversity caused by the Grey squirrel and into efficient control measures".
	Amendment No. 293B is a more exhaustive amendment that makes practical suggestions on the control of the harmful non-native species. It would insert an extra part into Schedule 9, which would specifically raise the issue of harmful non-native species.
	Our Amendment No. 293E would afford greater protection for the red squirrel by making provision for the control of the grey squirrel. It would add a schedule to the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act, which would impose a duty to control harmful non-native species. It is an alternative way of achieving the same ends as Amendment No. 293B.
	Recently the Government made an announcement about their desire to control grey squirrels. I understand that they are considering some action. A pre-announcement—and I hope that they will be able to confirm that it will happen—in the Daily Mail on 21 January 2006 indicated that they will call for humane culling of grey squirrels in areas where red squirrels are threatened. Grey squirrels not only threaten red squirrels, which are estimated to be down by some 140,000 compared with 6 million grey squirrels; they also carry the squirrel-pox virus, are a threat to songbirds, dormice and woodland birds—their eggs and young—and I gather they take the cobs from the Kent producers. I hope that the Minister, when she winds up, will bring us up to date with government thinking.
	I referred earlier to the exotic Chinese mitten crab, which the Minister also referred to. A study by researchers at Newcastle University compared their invasion to that of grey squirrels. The crabs prey on native species, such as the white-clawed crayfish and salmon eggs, and can destabilise river banks by burrowing into them with their own 50 centimetre-long boreholes. It is not just me who is concerned about that. Researchers in Newcastle University has done some important work highlighting the difficulty that grey squirrels cause to the conservation of red squirrels.
	I realise that red squirrels are very rare and sadly only exist in certain parts of England. I believe that that makes it all the more important that we address the issue. These amendments give me an opportunity to raise it. I beg to move.

Earl Peel: I very much support the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Byford and I support her amendment. We had a passionate speech a while ago from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about exotic birds. I sympathise with a lot of what she said. I do not suggest for one moment that I can make such a passionate speech about the red squirrel, but I would like to because I feel just as passionately about it. I should declare an interest as having been closely involved with the European Squirrel Initiative and as a patron of a wildlife park trust, which seeks to maintain, among other species, the red squirrel in our lands.
	As my noble friend has suggested, the situation in the United Kingdom with regard to the grey squirrel and its relationship with the red squirrel—indeed, with trees and with woodland birds—is worthy of a Second Reading speech, but I will try and keep my remarks as short as possible. The fact is that the Government really have done virtually nothing to try and stem the ever-expanding grey squirrel population. Frankly, unless something is done fast, the situation will result in the extermination of the red squirrel from this country.
	I am aware of the policy and action document which has just been published by the Government. Perhaps it at least sheds a small degree of light at the end of a pretty dismal tunnel. We will just have to see how that manifests itself in due course.
	In supporting the amendment, I would like to stress the seriousness of the situation. On the dreaded parapox virus, which is transmitted by the greys—my noble friend has already referred to it—there seems to be very little research going into trying to stem its effects. It has only recently been announced—and I think that it is a tragic indictment of the situation—that the parapox virus has now infiltrated Kielder Forest in Northumberland and Whinfell Forest in Cumbria, two of the last bastions of the red squirrel in this country. It now looks as though those two populations face the serious threat of total decline.
	I simply fail to understand why the Government, English Nature or the Forestry Commission have not commissioned research on the impact of the grey squirrel in the demise of woodland bird populations. Most people whom I know associate themselves with that correlation, but research needs to be done so that we know for sure that this is indeed the problem we think it is. Most importantly, I simply do not understand why sufficient funding has not been made available to try and develop an effective immuno-contraception method. It is something which I know has been looked at in this country, and I believe that research is being done abroad. But the Government seem to have lost interest in the subject. Will the Minister confirm that they are at least keeping in touch with what is going on and perhaps helping with the development through government investment?
	My noble friend mentioned that Britain is a signatory to a variety of international treaties, including the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, the 2004 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and the Burn convention. All these call on signatories to tackle the problem of invasive alien species, but as yet the Government seem to have been ducking and weaving and the grey squirrel remains at large without any serious attempts to try and control its further levels of invasion.
	The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and I have tabled many Written Questions on the subject. I am bound to say that it is becoming increasingly clear that the Government and the various agencies have been deliberately prevaricating over the question of grey squirrel control. Unless this nettle is really grasped and urgent and drastic action is taken to reduce severely the grey squirrel population in this country, we will lose the red population completely, which I believe is totally unacceptable. So I am looking to the Minister to give a really positive response to my noble friend's amendment so that we can get a real commitment from the Government that they will finally do something to reduce seriously the impact of the grey squirrel and save the red squirrel in this country.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I want to pick up the point by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, about ballast water. It is perfectly true that there are light treatments that will kill all microbial problems in water, but no light treatment that I have heard of would kill a mitten crab. Some other means of preventing such an invasion would therefore be required, although we know now that in this instance we would be closing the stable door after the horse had bolted and so we have a problem.
	There is also the other oversized crab marching down or along the north coast of Russia which has already come around the corner into Norway. I have some hope on that one; I found myself slightly amused by the fact that although it was originally a Stalinist programme its control may become a capitalist success because there is a good market for that crab. The real reason I rise to speak is to support my noble friends on red squirrels. There were red squirrels in Essex when I was a boy. I was wild enough to climb up and explore squirrel drays when I was nine or 10 years old. I never had the good fortune to tip a red squirrel out of a dray, so I cannot claim that I am the reason that they left, but they were there and a part of my childhood.
	That is no longer the case. Now we have grey squirrels; I daresay that we trap them and kill them humanely whenever we can, because they are a nuisance in more ways than one and not just to red squirrels. They are the prime cause for the retreat of the red squirrels into the vastnesses in the north where even now, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Peel, they are becoming endangered by the spread of the virus that the grey squirrels carry with them. There is no doubt that the reason for the spread of the grey squirrel is that as a society we have neglected to deal with them as the invasive issue that they are. If one goes out into the London parks and watches people treating the greys almost as pets, one realises that there is a huge psychological problem in dealing with the issue because most people regard that pernicious animal as rather a sweet little thing that is rather pretty and nice and think, "Why should we worry about it?". So there is a political problem, with a small "p", over the issue because the public's approach is based on sentiment rather than on reality. The reality is that because of sentiment we are losing one of our favourite animals in the country.
	While I am on my feet I should mention another invasive species that warrants merit in this context: the muntjac deer. We do not see many of them because they are on the whole secretive. They live discreetly; they tend to live singly or in pairs. They do not show themselves in the open much unless they are disturbed. But the fact is that the population of the muntjac deer is rising and one comes across them across all of southern England at the present time, up into the Midlands—it may be that they go all the way up to the north. That is another invasive species. The danger that they pose is not to another animal species but particularly to bluebell woods. We happen to have a particularly fine bluebell wood on our land and so far we have been fortunate; but the muntjac are around and we all know that they are there. Deer are becoming an increasing problem. In this case they are not invasive species: the fellow deer and the roe deer in East Anglia are now said to number somewhere towards the 300,000 mark. In my part of Essex one can go out on almost any evening in the summer and find a herd of 70, 80 or even 90 to look at—that is ordinary deer. But hidden in those ordinary deer numbers is a subversive group of muntjac deer that cause a great deal of harm to plant life in woodland and in open fields.
	There is a strong case for saying that we should deal with muntjac deer as well. There is less inclination to say that they are sweet, cuddly little creatures than there is with grey squirrels. The muntjac is not exactly handsome; it is rather an ugly little beast, but it is also a pernicious pest that does a great deal of damage to plant life.

Baroness Byford: I am very grateful to all Members of the Committee who have contributed to this important debate. I must say that I am slightly disappointed by the Minister's response. I shall deal with that specifically. My noble friend Lord Peel is quite right: the Government have launched action, but that is for the future. At this stage, I do not think that they quite understand the seriousness of the situation. The Minister says, "It is up to landowners; they can do it". As my noble friend rightly pointed out, unless there is a concerted effort, it will not address the problem.
	Over the past few months, at least 16 or 17 articles in the press have debated the question of the control of grey squirrels and the demise of red squirrels. We have not fully debated this afternoon the question of how one controls grey squirrels. There are legal methods of controlling them: the Minister mentioned contraception in food, which is one way. You can trap them; you can shoot them; you can kill them in many ways.
	I must tell the Minister that the general public is hesitant to mass culling. It is looking for more action from the Government to ensure that research is carried on and that development of some sort of contraception is the main aim. Most of us would agree with that. It is a serious matter about which I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, would have spoken at great length.
	Although the Minister says that the Government do not own many properties, the Forestry Commission owns a lot of land. The Government may say that it is at arm's length from them, but someone owns the Forestry Commission. Some of my noble friends own land that has forest or woodland on it and they will try to do what they can, but the big area where the grey squirrel is obviously an increasing threat is that of the Forestry Commission . I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rotherwick for clearly defining the enormity of the problem that he faces in trying to control and land-manage his tree plantations and his difficult struggle to control grey squirrels.
	As I said, I listened to the Minister with great care. I am disappointed. Before I move on, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith for raising the question of muntjac. I do not live in a very wooded area, but we have two regular visitors of muntjac to our garden and the trees around. Frankly, they are a pest. I know that research will be done, but the Government's lack of initiative, drive and action forces me to beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

Lord Bach: I am about to tell the noble Baroness that. It is on the website, which includes details of the SSSIs, why they are important and what the condition of the site is. The noble Baroness can log on later and find that out. I thank her for her question.
	It is very much hoped that in some cases the parties would reach agreement but in the last analysis the courts could determine any issues that needed to be determined. That is why we think it is a practical way of looking at the issues which arise out of these amendments.
	The noble Baroness referred briefly to Amendment No. 302. Its aim is to expand the areas over which Natural England and, in Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales, can exercise their powers to put in place management schemes and, if necessary, enforce them through the use of management notices. This goes wider than the SSSIs; outside the SSSIs. A scheme may be made for the purpose of conserving the special interest features of a SSSI, restoring them or both. While there must be consultation with the owners and occupiers of the SSSI, the final decision as to whether the scheme is necessary and what it can contain is a matter for the conservation bodies. Where an owner or occupier is not giving effect to the scheme and the SSSI features are being inadequately conserved or restored, the conservation bodies may serve a management notice on him provided they are satisfied that it is not possible to conclude a management agreement with that individual on reasonable terms. Failure to comply with the terms of the notice is a criminal offence. Additionally, the conservation bodies may carry out the work required by the notice and recover the costs from the landowner or occupier. These are all strong positive powers introduced by Parliament in 2000 to secure the conservation of SSSIs. They are currently applicable only to owners and occupiers of the SSSI—people who have had the opportunity to make representations when the SSSI was created, have had the benefit of advice and been given the list of operations likely to harm the site's features. They will also have had a say in the management of the site. As a registrable land charge, successors to these people will be aware of the SSSI nature of their acquisition.
	However, we believe that the position is very different for other landowners whose land is not within the SSSI itself—they would have acquired their interests with no prior warning or expectation that such robust restrictions or management prescriptions might be later imposed on them and their business activities by the nature conservation bodies. We believe that there are more co-operative means for securing appropriate management by land owners outside the SSSIs. The Bill already provides a power in Clause 7 for entering into management agreements with any person, on any land, for anything within the broad purpose of Natural England. SSSI agreements can already be entered into with owners and occupiers of land outside an SSSI if this is necessary for the conservation of the site. Additionally, Natural England will administer the Environmental Stewardship Scheme and experience to date is that most land managers are willing to co-operate and to enter into land management agreements.
	There are other factors too that will encourage or require land managers generally to raise environmental standards more widely. These include the CAP reform cross-compliance requirements and in relation to the water environment, the need to achieve the ecological standards of the Water Framework Directive. Given this continual drive towards better land management and the fact that neither English Nature, nor the Countryside Council for Wales considers such an extension to their powers is justified, I do not believe that Amendment No. 302 is necessary.
	The changes would give Natural England very imposing control over adjacent and possibly even more distant land owners and occupiers. We think instead that Natural England should continue to work through positive partnerships with land managers who have no immediate interest in the land holdings containing the SSSI land as it does with the majority of those within the sites. It should work collaboratively with other regulatory advisory bodies whose functions might be better suited to some of the issues arising out of the SSSIs. That is why we do not believe that Amendment No. 302 is appropriate.
	Lastly, perhaps I may reply to my noble friend Lord Carter and thank him for raising the important issue on our Amendment No. 301. This provision is indeed prospective rather than retrospective. It is an improvement to the existing regime and will apply to any notifications, including amendments to existing sites, made after the provision comes into force. It makes the position quite clear for the future. However, as my noble friend pointed out, the current amendment will not provide such a safeguard to existing sites, of which there are more than 4,000. It is also right that we do not expect this current suite of SSSIs significantly to increase in future and therefore the majority of the risks of legal challenge to validity are no doubt already inherent in the system.
	One of the perhaps few advantages we have had during the Committee stage is that it has been useful to allow us to reflect further on the issue in relation to existing sites. While we consider that in the event of any challenge there would be very strong public interest arguments to maintaining the validity of a SSSI, we agree that while we have this opportunity it would be preferable expressly to deal with the situation in relation to existing sites so that they are safeguarded as future sites will be. I would of course wish to ensure that there is clarity and certainty over whether and at what point any existing missed owners or occupiers become subject to the control regime, with the aim of ensuring that the system is fair and proportionate to all SSSI landowners and occupiers.
	For these reasons, careful consideration is now being given to further widening the measure if this amendment is accepted, so that it will apply to existing notifications as well as future ones. I hope that the Committee will appreciate that this raises slightly more complicated issues than the ones we are debating now. However, subject to this further consideration, may I indicate to the Committee that I hope to come back to this issue at Report. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister. I put on record that he told me earlier today that the Government were going to withdraw their amendments because there was a technical fault with them. My Amendment No. 306A is grouped, and I explained to the Minister that I would speak to it as it seemed to me that if the Government were going to reflect on their amendments and come forward with new ones it would be of benefit to them to hear some of the views that might be expressed around the Committee in anticipation of those new amendments.
	The Minister has explained why he has withdrawn his amendments at this stage and that he will be bringing new amendments forward on Report. Mr Justice Sullivan, in the case of Meyrick v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, ruled that the land at Hinton Admiral Park was unsuitable, and the New Forest National Park Designation (Confirmation) Order was quashed. The Minister has indicated that the department will appeal. Even so, it seems to be at best hasty and at worst rash to push through legislation in the way that would have happened if the Minister had not decided to withdraw his amendments. Unless the amendments are changed in a major way, that will still apply. Does the noble Lord accept that this could be viewed as a case of sub judice?
	Mr Justice Sullivan said:
	"It must be remembered that the question is not what factors should, as a matter of good countryside planning practice in the 21st century be taken into consideration in designating a National Park, but what factors may lawfully be taken into consideration under an enactment that is now over 55 years old".
	Parliament had an opportunity to change that in 1995, but did not do so. Government Amendment No. 305 rewrites the legal basis for national parks, by changing both the criteria of natural beauty and open-air recreation.
	The addition of the words "wildlife and cultural heritage" overturns the High Court decision. What is meant by cultural heritage? It is not defined in this Bill or the 1949 Act. What will it cover, and who will decide what is or is not relevant? Any Secretary of State could choose to decide to that anything counted as cultural heritage and could feasibly designate any area with an old building—or in the case of the South Downs an Anglo-Saxon burial ground—as a national park. Our Amendment No. 306A would ensure that no land would be designated as a national park unless it had already achieved a high degree of "relative naturalness". We have chosen the wording that Mr Justice Sullivan used in the Meyrick case. It is a tried, tested and, at the moment, legally binding position.
	As the judge said, natural beauty is a relative concept. In the case of a national park, it is an extensive tract of land that is relatively natural. That will invariably include some more managed areas that would otherwise not have been considered as meeting the national park criteria, such as, for example, Chatsworth Park in the Derbyshire Peak District National Park, which is entirely surrounded by a very extensive area of moorland. In England, we have a spectrum of wild upland areas at one end, and intensively cultivated or managed land at the other. In the judge's ruling, it was clear that the law needs to include criteria for designating national parks of a high degree of relative naturalness. In other words, national park land should be that which has been least interfered with by man. It should be the finest landscape in the country.
	The next part of our amendment would ensure that any recreational potential in the possible national park land was assessed on its present potential. The Government's amendment—which has not been moved, so it is quite difficult for me; but I hope that I am still in order—redefines the criteria for open-air recreation. It enables national park designators to consider land that could be used for open-air recreation. In current legislation, open-air recreation is only a part of the national park criteria if that recreation already exists. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what is meant by the fact that national parks,
	"could be used to promote opportunities for open-air recreation".

Lord Bach: The noble Baroness knows why it has not been debated. I have explained fully to the Committee, and indeed to her by telephone this morning, to explain why. It is absolutely a matter for her whether she chooses to speak to or move her amendment today. But she cannot blame us if she has difficulties with it.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: May I make some objection to the continual intervention on this point of the noble Lord, Lord Carter? If the Government are going to come back later, on Report, with amendments that we will not have the chance to discuss in Committee, it is perfectly reasonable to have as full a debate as we can now on the noble Baroness's amendment. She is quite entitled to compare the wording in her amendment with a hypothetical wording which the Government may still be inclined to use. Although the noble Lord, Lord Carter, shakes his head, and I am aware it is nearly the dinner hour, it is important to get the wording of this absolutely correct. In saying that, I do not support the wording of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, either.

Lord Judd: I certainly accept the apology of my noble friend—he is always one of the most courteous Ministers in dealing with the House. I am sure that no offence was intended. The letters may indeed be waiting for us when we get out of this Committee and go back to our desks. In the circumstances I would like commend the noble Baroness on having pursued her amendment as far as she did. I agree with what was said from the Liberal Front Bench. If we are to return to this matter only on Report, it is important for the Government in Committee to know a bit about the issues raised—and I ensure my noble friend Lord Carter that I will try to stay within his strictures—by the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.
	I apologise for speaking fully on this matter, but it is very important that I do so. I think that the noble Baroness will agree that the views she puts forward reflect the view of those who are unhappy about the creation of the South Downs National Park and who claim that the Bill will move the goalposts for the designation process. The outcome of the Meyrick case in the High Court, which excluded land at the Hinton estate in the New Forest from the new park, has clearly therefore provided ammunition for this anxiety and this proposition. I want to deal with that in the context of what the noble Baroness has said about her amendment.
	Section 5(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which gives the criteria for designating national parks, currently states:
	"The said areas are those extensive tracts of country . . . as to which it appears to the Commission that by reason of (a) their natural beauty".
	While Section 5(1) of the same Act gives the purposes of the national parks as:
	"(a) to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife, and cultural heritage".
	In the Meyrick case, the judge concentrated on the difference between the criteria and the purposes. His analysis, as I understand it, was that the added distinction of "natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage" in national park purposes, compared with the sole mention of "natural beauty" in their criteria, meant that wildlife and cultural heritage are not factors which can be considered when selecting areas of landscape for national park designation. But this is surely questionable. Prior to the 1995 Environment Act, the purposes and criteria of the national parks were the same. The purposes were only then amended so that national parks could be certain that they could focus more on biodiversity and heritage improvements. In practice, for the last half century, wildlife and cultural heritage have been a clear influence on what land should be included for national park designation. For whatever reasons, however, the judge did not address the issue of practice and precedent.
	However, because of the focus on "natural beauty", the judge pondered what that could mean and, in the absence of a legal definition in the 1949 Act, put forward his own. It was,
	"a high degree of relative naturalness"
	—in other words, very little interference by man. By that definition, the Hinton estate in the New Forest, with its parkland, farmland, woodland and Grade 1 listed building, did not qualify. That clearly has big implications for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty alike. The 1949 Act applies to the creation of both. They all contain land influenced by man, through farmland to physical infrastructure and settlements, and to areas very similar to the Hinton estate, like Chatsworth or Lyme Park in the Peak District. Again, it must be underlined that the judge did not address practice and precedent. All national parks in Britain are influenced by man. That is why the Government's new clause, which we were expecting this evening, made common sense—but we must not discuss that.
	We need to look at some of the history. The application of the natural beauty criterion by the Countryside Agency has been fully exposed to debate and ratification in Parliament and by government for more than 50 years. Starting with the reports that led to the creation of national parks, it is obvious that "natural beauty" or "scenic beauty" and the influence of wildlife, cultural heritage and man have been critical to the designation process. The 1945 Dower report, which made the first post-war recommendations for national parks, set out the requirements clearly—the characteristic landscape beauty is strictly preserved; access and facilities for public open-air enjoyment are amply provided; wildlife, buildings and places of architectural and historic interest are suitably protected; and established farming use is effectively maintained.
	The report of the national parks committee chaired by Sir Arthur Hobhouse and presented to the Minister of Town and Country Planning in 1947 underlined that approach with its references to "merit in variety", "wide diversity of landscape" in England and Wales, and the need to include,
	"other districts, which though of lesser grandeur, have their own distinct beauty".
	The report tellingly observed:
	"We are dealing with a closely populated and highly developed country where almost every acre of land is used in some degree for the economic needs of man and has its place in a complex design of agricultural, industrial or residential use".
	Both the Dower and Hobhouse reports had far-reaching influence on the preparation and legislative process that produced the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.
	Between 1951 and 1957, 10 national parks and 37 areas of outstanding natural beauty were designated. Again, I emphasise that all of them contained manmade features—settlements, farmlands, and areas similar to the Hinton estate. In 1974, the so-called Sandford report, by the committee established by the government with the Reverend Lord Sandford in the chair, after taking much evidence and holding many public meetings did not find any need to review the criteria. Again in 1991, the national park review panel chaired by the distinguished professor, Ron Edwards, recommended no changes; indeed, it re-emphasised the influence of man, observing that,
	"the essence of the concept of national parks lies in the striking quality and remoteness of much of the scenery, the harmony between man and nature it displays . . . the softer and less remote areas of our national parks also exemplify at their best a harmonious interaction between humanity and the natural world . . . This part of the national parks scene where man's hand is most in evidence is no less an integral part".
	If there is any question of the goalposts being moved, it is not by anything that we might have been debating this evening—I must remain in order—but by the ruling in the Meyrick case. I hope that what I have said will help to reassure the noble Baroness that the situation as it stood until that ruling is the one that overwhelmingly recognises what the national parks are about, clearly, explicitly and in every sense. In this Committee today, we should continue that tradition. Therefore, I hope that on consideration she will not find it necessary to press her amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am sorry to intervene at this stage and delay us still further into what is normally regarded as the dinner hour, but unfortunately I happen to have with me the Minister's letter. It is appropriate to quote from it, so that we know why there is the dilemma, why my noble friend has rightly initiated this debate, and why it needs to continue to take place. The letter states:
	"I explained in my letter that this recent High Court case has produced a difficult judgment regarding the purposes and criteria for designating land as a new National Park, and in particular on how the term 'natural beauty' is to be interpreted. The effect of the combination of amendments 305 and 353 with consequential amendments . . . sought: to clarify what may be considered under the 'natural beauty' criterion, to clarify the role of the purposes in designation, and to clarify that just because an area is used for agriculture, woodland, as parkland or is the product of human intervention in the landscape it is not prevented from being treated as area of natural beauty.
	Since laying these amendments the Board of the Countryside Agency have only very recently raised an important possible ambiguity in amendment 305; i.e. that it could be taken to imply that wildlife and cultural heritage considerations carry the same weight as natural beauty, whereas in fact they should be subsidiary to it.
	Defra lawyers and Parliamentary Counsel are looking at how that intention can be made unequivocal but have not been able to draft an alternative amendment in time".
	It is therefore clear that the Government's intention is that the general purport of the amendments should stand. Therefore, despite the fact that the amendments have not been moved tonight, they are the background to this discussion.
	In sympathy with my noble friend, I am bound to say that as time moves on it appears increasingly that the criteria for designating national parks is becoming relatively looser, if I can put it that way; my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry would be suitably furious with me for those words. While there is considerable justification in the original designations—the New Forest was an inevitable and natural extension—when we get to the South Downs, if we are not extremely careful we get to the point where almost any area that happens to look rather attractive scenically is included. I have an area of outstanding natural beauty in my area. It is an attractive piece of countryside—not particularly so, but it happened to be painted by a notorious artist and, as a consequence, everybody thinks that it must be special. It is a bit of the English countryside—heaven help us. The English countryside has its glories all over the place, but they do not all justify the designation of a national park.
	The way in which we are moving makes it increasingly possible that beautiful areas can be designated as national parks, whereas they are simply natural bits of glorious English countryside. It is right that we are having this discussion, although it is probably time to draw it to a conclusion, as we will clearly have it all again at some point on Report.

Lord Chorley: I did not intend to take part in the debate because I got the Minister's letter, but I want to support the noble Lord, Lord Judd—contrary-wise to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The looseness was already in the 1949 Act. The Lake District is in the part of the world in which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I live. I also declare an interest as vice chairman, or vice-president—I cannot remember which—of the Council for National Parks. In the Lake District, Windermere would fail the Meyrick test, as would Ambleside, Hawkshead, Coniston, Keswick, Borrowdale. Penrith is outside, so it does not matter, but practically every village in the Lake District would fail. That shows that the merit case does not fit. It is right that the Government are paying considerable attention to sorting it out. It is a pity we cannot get it reversed in the courts beforehand, as that would be much easier. Nevertheless, I understand the Government's predicament.

Earl Peel: I have a lot to say on this issue, but given the time and the fact that the Government have withdrawn the amendment, I shall not begin to approach any of the points that I was going to make. It is despicable that legislation of this magnitude is introduced into the Committee stage of a Bill in this House, and which has not been scrutinised in another place. This is no way to conduct legislation. It is hugely important legislation, which diminishes national park status. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, but I shall not debate the issues now. I simply want to say that this is not the correct way of dealing with legislation of this magnitude.

Lord Bach: I have listened carefully to everything that has been said in this debate by the noble Baroness in moving her amendment, and the different points of view round the Committee. I shall read Hansard with extreme care before deciding what wording the government amendment should have at Report stage. I do not intend to stand at the Dispatch Box and reply to the questions that have been raised now. If anyone wants a particular question answered by letter, I shall be happy to do that. We shall meet again at Report and will have another discussion on this important matter. I thank all those who have taken part in the debate, and once again apologise to everyone, except the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—in other words, all those who did not receive my letter.

Lord Lea of Crondall: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether globalisation will reverse the long-term trend towards greater equality in the distribution of income and wealth in the United Kingdom.
	My Lords, the basic story I have to tell is that the positive processes of globalisation have some negative effects on income distribution in Britain but national governments are not impotent in being able to correct that. Our own Government seem not prepared to challenge, as they should, the grossly disproportionate increases in income at the top of the distribution, which those involved often attempt to justify by rhetoric about globalisation, thereby running the risk of a perception of globalisation that will bring it into disrepute. It is a story about two levels of experience.
	Globalisation affects different levels of income distribution in different ways. That has been well documented by the European Commission, which has competence for our trade policy, in its introduction to the new European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Its assessment shows that displacement rates tend to be greater in sectors where international competition is most intense, such as textiles, clothing and automobiles. But it shows that the broader benefits—price decreases for consumers, and so on—are on a longer timescale than the downside costs. Moreover, costs and benefits are typically concentrated in different regions. Furthermore, the costs borne by "trade-dislocated workers" tend to be higher than those borne by other job losers. For example, they often have vocational skills specific to declining occupations and industries.
	Wage rates in replacement employment can be especially low for older job losers. Noble Lords will recall that precisely this group was identified in the recent welfare Green Paper as a target group that we want to be able to get back to work. The wage loss seems to be particularly pronounced for high-tenured blue-collar workers who have normally been well above the minimum wage, welcome though that is. Costs are mainly concentrated on less skilled and more vulnerable workers—women in particular—as a result of the high female representation in employment in the trade-affected sectors. Displaced workers tend not only to be older, but less educated and have held the lost job for longer than workers generally.
	The Commission's concern and its determination to rebalance this unequal redistribution is because, in political—as well as social and economic—terms,
	"this mismatch directly fuels rejection of the opening up of the economy".
	In other words, it leads to protectionism. It is a timely and accurate analysis requiring active programmes to respond to these "market externalities" of globalisation, and I think we would all accept their emphasis on dealing with information gaps, though job search assistance, for example; qualification gaps, through tailor made training; and geographical mismatch, through relocation allowances, and so on. I think everyone would acknowledge the broader point that, as we move relentlessly to employment in service sectors, with ipso facto different earnings distribution from manufacturing, the sectoral shift per se brings with it a negative impact on the overall distribution of income.
	However, it is an impact which a number of other European countries have, unlike Britain, been able to neutralise. The big picture, if I may oversimplify, is the Anglo-Saxon countries versus the rest; pure capitalism, if you like, versus the social market variety of most of the European Union. Samuel Brittan—not a left wing firebrand—in an essay in the Financial Times on 10 February on the American experience of extravagant top salaries, and an explanation of the distributional effects of globalisation, says that the pay of chief executive officers rose by 100 per cent in the past decade, while that for maths and computer sciences occupations rose by less than 5 per cent. He questions the reliance, as in the report of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, on the "shift of skills and technology" explanation of these effects. He concludes:
	"One day, competition from China and India will deal with bloated top salaries. But not yet".
	Here in Britain, too, it is the chief executives and other executive directors of top companies—particularly of global corporations—who are prominent among the winners in this game of snakes and ladders. When I say "Britain", I had better include the Isle of Man, with no corporate tax, and the Channel Islands and the Cayman Islands—companies with household names are registered in all three. The UK is a prominent home for multinational corporations, which make up one-third of world output and two-thirds of world trade, half of which takes place within the trans-nationals themselves, at prices which they often fix in order to minimise tax.
	But company law and tax law at national level have themselves been so far overtaken by globalisation that, in the vast proportion of cases, boards feel they are under no pressure to discuss the rationale of directors' remuneration. Remuneration committees do not so far include workers representatives—an overdue reform some of us have been campaigning for—and the picture is generally as Samuel Brittan describes it for the US, even if the numbers here are not quite so extravagant.
	To avoid any misunderstanding about where I am coming from, I very much welcome the fact that that India and China are growing at 10 per cent per annum. There is no way in which typical European countries which are 10 times better off need to flagellate themselves about not growing at that pace. That is what world development is all about. The need for the trade unions to work together within sectors and multinationals was the theme of a lecture I gave a couple of years ago in Bangalore to professionals as well as trade unions. The last thing we want is any doctrine that the interests of workers in Britain and in India, for example, are opposed.
	But we have a difficulty. With globalisation now taking centre stage as a catch-all explanation for almost everything that moves—mergers and acquisitions also spring to mind—the perception which our members are taking from the debate is that, in a number of sectors, they are becoming more vulnerable and that, in this brave new world, any idea of having an overall policy on income distribution is now as viable as King Canute trying to stop the incoming tide. That is the perception—what people think they are being told—which my noble friend now has an opportunity to correct.
	Of course, the media have fallen for this new historicism hook, line and sinker. Even the Financial Times, normally cool and analytical, opined on 7 February that shorter working time was now,
	"unsustainable in the face of competition from China and India".
	It was, paradoxically, only a few days later that it ran a story highlighting the growing dilemmas of work/life balance in this country—notably, but not exclusively, for women—arising from our long hours culture.
	The share of the top 1 per cent of income recipients in Britain has in recent years jumped back to pre-war levels. The richest 1 per cent doubled their share of pre-tax income from 6.7 per cent in 1981 to 13 per cent in 1999—precisely the same as in 1937, the year of my birth, so we have gone back 68 years. This top 1 per cent last year paid themselves some £100 billion pre-tax, and about £75 billion post-tax. As the American Senator would have said, "£100 billion here and £100 billion there soon starts to add up to real money".
	For those of you who cannot quite get the hang of billions, a topical comparison—I say this with my tongue firmly in my cheek—is that £100 billion corresponds to the proceeds of 2,000 top-of-the-range bank robberies. And for anyone who thinks that there is something tricky about quoting the top 1 per cent, the share of the top 10 per cent in the UK also rose from 28 per cent in 1979 to 40 per cent before tax in 1999—that is £350 billion—and from 26 per cent in 1979 to 36 per cent in 1999 after tax—that is £270 billion. That trend has certainly not been reversed, if one reads company reports.
	Britain is unique in the EU in this huge growth of differentials at the top. In an important study comparing Britain with the Netherlands—an economy with a similar degrees of openness to that of the United Kingdom—Professor Tony Atkinson, with his unchallenged reputation in this field, found that their top 10 per cent shares were absolutely unchanged between 1979 and 1999, at 28 per cent before tax and 24 per cent after tax; in other words, a huge way below ours. Indeed, Britain now finds itself with Spain, Greece and Portugal in a distinct group at the end of the European inequality league table, with the Nordics being at the other end. Incidentally, the latter are collectively the winners of the world competitiveness index. To those who say that this explosion of top incomes is the specific result of innovation and generally brilliant performance, the only answer in Lancastrian is, "Pull the other one!" Do the Dutch, Swedes and Finns not innovate as well?
	I am looking forward to this short debate. I saw reports that David Cameron was making a speech about a one nation approach to social and economic progress under the banner "Young Etonians for Social Justice and Equality of Opportunity in a Globalised World". Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, who I welcome onto the Front Bench for this debate, will be able to give us more details.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for a number of noble Lords when I say that although we may not be a very full Chamber, but the importance of this topic is none the less much greater than the attendance would suggest. We are dealing with a phenomenon that will decide not only our future, but that of our children and grandchildren. We are dealing with a phenomenon which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, has so eloquently said, is constantly being described in terms that make it sound like the tide coming in—something that we can do absolutely nothing about.
	I remember a family friend's child—brought up in a strictly urban setting—was given a set of tide tables for a part of the Isle of Wight, where we were, and said "I don't expect they keep to them", imagining that, like buses, they were subject to human control. Globalisation has to be. We are not experiencing something totally new. After all, there have always been superpowers with global ambitions—and we as a nation have been particularly prominent in that field.
	Globalisation is not something to be either afraid of or surprised about. What has changed, I venture to suggest, is that technology and the explosion in the world money supply has meant that money itself has far more power in the human economy than it has ever had before. Possessions were previously measured much more in terms of static objects such as houses and estates. Now they have numbers and they move very fast. Since the oil price rises of the 1970s and since the explosion of plastic and other computerised technology for the manipulation of money we now find money much more determinative of people's attitudes and much more prominent in their ambitions. People have always wanted to be wealthy, but the fact of the power of money makes a huge difference to how wealth is conceived and how wealth is manipulated. That is exactly what gives rise to the phenomenon to which the noble Lord has drawn such eloquent attention.
	When the Doctrine Commission of the Church of England produced a report called Being Human, a report on the character of human being in our time, it thought it necessary, as well as having obvious chapters on things like sex and power, to have one on money. It did that not because it did not realise that what the Scriptures talk about is the love of money, but because it recognised that money had come to the point where it generates its own speed and its own love of itself. That is why we are at a time when it is crucially important that humankind takes control of this phenomenon. It is a world that is of course getting smaller; a world in which movement is faster; and a world in which we have the possibility of becoming more aware of one another and our effect on one another. But that makes it crucially important that we do not surrender to the view that this is like some global tide. It is actually within the realms of possibility that human beings should control their future and should take to themselves the advantages and possibilities of an increasingly global way of living. That means of course attending to the effects of what produces prosperity for some on the poverty and vulnerability of some of those most deeply affected in our own country and of course elsewhere.
	So, we need to overcome the polarisation which has existed between those who favour regulation, which is thought to be left wing, and those who do not, which is thought to be right wing. We need to discover ways of guiding—not perhaps regulating but guiding—that development, which is so crucial to us all. We need to find ways of capturing for humankind the values and the possibilities of humankind, the globalisation process. We are not here to stop it. We are not here to moan about it. We are here to humanise it and to make it our own, for the sake of ourselves and our children.

Lord Dubs: I wonder whether I am the only member of the Committee speaking in the debate who is not on one local national park body or another. I have no such interest to declare although my home is in a national park, in the Lake District.
	What is it that we expect of the members of the national parks authorities? What contribution do they bring, or ought they to bring, to the work of national parks? It is right that we should be seeking a wider mix of membership. That was supported by the various reviews that have taken place, both in England and in Wales, where wider membership was supported and indeed the consultation process suggested precisely that.
	However, we have a departure from an important principle in the way in which the Bill is now drafted, in Clause 57. The Bill will give a future Minister or Secretary of State enormous discretion to change the numbers of persons in membership of a national park authority. That means that the Minister or Secretary of State will have enormous powers to change the membership and balance it in one way or another. I would have thought that that is not desirable. I understand that the department will say, "We need flexibility to deal with future contingencies". That is fair enough; one does not want to tie the department or the Government in such a way that any slight change in circumstances will require new primary legislation. However, Amendment No. 307A gives the Minister the necessary discretion while at the same time ensuring that there is a proper mix.
	Why is the mix important? It is important because national parks are not just local bodies serving people in the local area. National parks are, by their very name, national bodies which provide a service and provide facilities for people from all over the country. That is why so many people travel to the national parks for their leisure and recreation. It would be rather limiting to say that we do not need national members but should simply appoint people on a very local basis. I am not saying that the Government have that in mind but my concern is that the very wide discretion that the Government are taking upon themselves in Clause 57 may well work against having the sort of membership mix that is conducive to the effective running of national parks.

Lord Bach: On that issue, the advice that I have received is that it is always the Secretary of State who appoints the nominees from the parish councils; he or she will do that in all cases.
	The two amendments are on an interesting subject. I garner three general principles raised by them, and I shall address them before I make some comments on the practicability of Amendment No. 307 itself. The first general principle, which is raised by both amendments, is that the primary legislation should specify that national members should always make up at least 25 per cent of an authority. The second general principle, again raised by both amendments, is that before laying an order to establish the membership of an authority the Government should consult not just the local authorities affected but,
	"all relevant authorities and interested bodies".
	The third general principle, which is raised only by Amendment No. 307, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is that national park authorities should include some members—perhaps a majority—who are directly elected to that authority.
	Let me take those three principles in turn. First, I refer to the 25 per cent rule. That is the case for specifying in primary legislation that 25 per cent of each national park authority must always be made up of those other members whom the Secretary of State appoints, and who are often referred to as the national members to distinguish them from their colleagues who are drawn from local authorities or parish councils. The key consideration is not so much the 25 per cent figure itself, which is in any case consistent with current practice, but whether it is sensible for any level to be set in primary legislation, and whether that is a decision best left for secondary legislation, when the make-up of each individual national park authority—one is different from another—is being set by statutory instrument.
	The Government's clear view is that such decisions are best left to secondary legislation where they can be taken on a case-by-case basis, and can reflect the context in which NPAs are working at the time. The Welsh Assembly Government are preparing to consult on membership arrangements and have expressed the view that they would not want the Bill to pre-empt the decisions that they will take in light of their consultation.
	The second principle is whether the Government should have to consult more widely before introducing secondary legislation. Although the existing statutory requirement is to consult only the local authorities, it is already Defra's practice to include other consultees who may have an interest. In practice we are already doing what the amendment seeks. Perhaps it could be argued that no change to the legislation is therefore needed.
	I turn to the principle of directly elected members, which is again part of Amendment No. 307 but not Amendment No.307A. This is a well-worn issue, having recently been debated and rejected in another place. Directly elected members for England and Welsh park authorities was a subject discussed when the existing legislation was being enacted, and was looked at again in both the English and Welsh reviews. The issue has never commanded general support. Indeed, as the noble Baroness was frank enough to say at the start of her speech, neither the Association of National Park Authorities nor the Council for National Parks supports the idea.
	National park authorities are unique bodies. We need to recognise that and devise our approach accordingly. They have many of the characteristics of local authorities, including being subject to most of the generic local government legislation. They also have some features of a non-departmental public body. That duality reflects their dual responsibilities. They serve the country as a whole—they are after all national assets and called national parks—but they also have a direct responsibility towards those whose lives are spent in the park. The noble Lord talked about them in his speech.
	The current arrangements reflect their unique role rather well. At present, each authority has some members who have been elected to local authorities in the area, some members who have been recruited through a national competition, and in England some members who have been elected to parish councils. That mix gives them a broad range of skills and expertise that they perhaps need. It also ensures that they do not overlook either their national or local responsibilities. Is it na-ve to say that the real test of the current system is whether or not it actually works? It seems to us that it does. It certainly seemed to work to the authors of the 2002 Defra review of English national park authorities, who said that they were not persuaded that directly elected members would bring clear benefits. The separate review of the Welsh national park authorities also found no consensus on this issue. I have already mentioned what the Welsh Assembly Government plan in terms of consultation. In short, and to end, we see no need for a directly elected component. We believe that to introduce one could unbalance the approach that has proved successful for many years since independent national park authorities were established.
	Moving on from general principles, there are some drafting weaknesses in Amendment No. 307, which we fear is ambiguous and would not be workable. First, it is unclear whether it is intended for local authority and parish members to remain on national park authorities. The start of the amendment implies that they do not, yet they are mentioned in subsection (5). While the amendment would remove the part of the Bill which specifies that there are to be three categories of members—local authority, parish and national—perhaps inconsistency leaves in place those parts of the existing legislation which relate to each category.
	Secondly, Amendment No. 307 does not define what working in a national park would mean. Would part-time or unpaid work qualify? Would a directly elected member lose his or her place on the authority if they lost their job? Thirdly, the amendment does not specify how direct collections would be run; I refer, for example—and this point has already been made by the noble Baroness—to the simple question of who would be eligible to vote. For those reasons, I am afraid that we cannot support either of the amendments tonight.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: During the passage of this Bill we have talked about national parks, AONBs and SSSIs. My amendment seeks to introduce biosphere reserves into the debate. I should declare an interest: I live in the Braunton Burrows biosphere reserve. As the amendment states, these reserves are nominated by the national government and then designated by UNESCO. We could do more with designated reserves than we have to date. In the UK we have eight reserves. Internationally, there are 440 biosphere reserves in 97 countries.
	Biospheres are very special landscapes or are of particular interest environmentally, but they also work very hard to balance that with the communities who live in them. In one way, they represent a particularly interesting approach to sustainable development. Because of their international nature, there is a lot of learning that can go on between them. Because it is late, I do not want to talk too much about exactly what is involved in a biosphere. However, we could make much more use of those that we have to progress some interesting ideas.
	I am aware that before 2007, Defra will undertake a review of the suitability and effectiveness of our biospheres. While that review is being undertaken, we should be aware that we have not perhaps made the best use of what could be a very exciting test-bed for sustainable development. In the past we have talked about national parks as a test-bed for sustainable development, but they truly cannot be because they do not contain very much industry, larger settlements and so on. Very often, biospheres have to contend with all the normal things of life, besides having SSSIs, special landscapes within them and very often large coastal and maritime areas.
	My amendment seeks to suggest that we could make better use of biospheres. The Government could choose to use them as pilot areas for looking at new ways of involving the community in planning and involving people in the environment and governance. They could also use them for some of the things that we often talk about in this House in airy-fairy terms, but do not have anywhere on the ground to develop them. Biospheres offer an exciting opportunity nationally, but perhaps their most exciting possibility is internationally at a time when we are trying to address climate change, biodiversity and co-operation between countries. I hope that in raising this issue, I may at least succeed in raising the profile and awareness of what biosphere reserves are about and that we may have an opportunity to debate them at greater length. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This clause introduces a provision for biosphere reserves selected by the UK and designated under UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere programme, to be given pilot status with regard to planning and ministerial guidance. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the profile and awareness of the subject of biosphere reserves, UNESCO sites which aim to reconcile the conservation of biodiversity with its sustainable use.
	At present the three English sites—Braunton Burrows; Moor House, Upper Teesdale and the North Norfolk Coast, and the other five UK sites for that matter—do not fully meet the UNESCO criteria in that they are primarily designated for just a core zone and none has included complete buffer zones or transition zones indicated as necessary under the 1995 revised UNESCO criteria. This reflects the UK's approach to the selection and protection of wildlife sites whether they be at a local level, for instance national nature reserves, at national level, SSSIs or internationally—Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites. For each of these, our approach has been to identify the main populations that require protection and draw a tight line around those to ensure that all parties know the area merits protection.
	Whereas many other EU member states and countries around the world have included within their statutory designations buffer zones and/or transition zones, as highlighted by the UNESCO designations, the UK's regulatory regime is such that this is not a necessary requirement to achieve the sustainable conservation protection of the sites. The UK's application of the EC Habitats Directive's network of sites, Natura 2000, highlights this approach.
	While Natura 2000 sites encompass the important habitats or species of concern, controls on activities that may impact on these are not limited by where they occur but by where the affect may be felt. In other words, the UK's approach is that the potential buffer zone to its protected area network is the wider countryside in general.
	Although, as speakers have recognised, a further review of the UK's network of biosphere reserves is due, I do not at this stage see any wildlife benefit from extending zonations. As the core area of the UK's current crop of biosphere reserves is already statutorily protected, additional designation by UNESCO appears unlikely to result in additional direct wildlife gain. That said, I recognise that indirect benefit may derive from this international accolade, as it may encourage other stakeholders to give greater consideration to their actions and their consequences. The regional approach of biosphere reserves also reflects landscape-scale approaches to conservation found in conservation policies at global to local levels, and can contribute to the delivery of biodiversity action plan objectives.
	On the basis that the current statutory designations on which the UK's biosphere reserves have been selected are already included within existing planning and ancillary ministerial guidance—this is unlikely to change—I do not believe that the proposed amendment will achieve any wildlife gain. On the contrary, it may actually increase duplication and red-tape which could detract from the consideration of the important wildlife sites on which the reserves are based. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Judd have raised some important points which I will ensure that Natural England will explore.
	On the basis that the aims of the biosphere reserves are already adequately addressed by the protection afforded to the statutory designations at their core, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. If, on reflection, having read the debate, I have anything to add, I shall, of course, write to noble Lords.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.
	Monday, 27 February 2006.